The effects of problem based learning on

South African Journal of Education; 2014; 34(1)

1

Art. # 769, 20 pages, http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za

The effects of problem-based learning on pre-service teachers’
critical thinking dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving
ability
Senar Temel
Department of Chemistry Education, Hacettepe University, Turkey
senar@hacettepe.edu.tr
The aim of this study was two-fold. The first aim was to determine the levels of critical thinking
disposition and perception of problem-solving ability of pre-service teachers. The second aim
was to compare the effects of problem-based learning and traditional teaching methods on the
critical thinking dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving ability of pre-service teachers,
when implemented in the teaching of the acid-base topic. Participants for the study consisted
of 49 pre-service teachers. A pre-test–post-test control group design was used. Data were
obtained using the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory and Problem-Solving
Inventory. It was generally determined that pre-service teachers exhibit low levels of critical
thinking disposition and medium levels of perception of problem-solving ability. Also, while

problem-based learning and traditional teaching methods did not have different effects on the
critical thinking dispositions of pre-service teachers, they had different effects on their perceptions of problem-solving ability.
Keywords: critical thinking disposition; perception of problem-solving ability; problem-based
learning; traditional teaching method
Introduction

Our ever-changing and challenging world requires students, our future citizens, to go
beyond the building of their knowledge capacity; they need to develop their higher
order thinking skills, such as critical thinking, decision making, and problem-solving
(Miri, David & Uri, 2007:354). The rapid change and transformation in the nature of
information requires changes in the workforce profile. To equip individuals with skills
to conduct research, use and transform information, think critically and reflectively,
and make higher order decisions is needed to survive in this competitive world for
societies (ªendað & Odabaºý, 2009:132). Accordingly, qualities such as being able to
think critically and to express one’s thoughts, communicate effectively, make conscious choices, have the power of judgement and ability to make comparisons are
among the qualities that individuals should have in today’s information society
(Özden, 1998:85).
Thinking is the process by which individuals find meaning in the world that they
inhabit (Dewey, 1933). Cole and Scribner (1974:145) define thinking as “obtaining a
different thing from current knowledge and going beyond the current knowledge”.

Thinking skills, however, constitute critical thinking, problem-solving, reading com-

2

Temel

prehension, writing, scientific thinking, creative thinking, and creative problemsolving (Özden, 2011). Critical thinking, one of the skills associated with thinking, is
the evaluation of our own and others’ ideas with no prejudices. It is concerned with
how we think rather than what we think (Mulnix, 2012). It is a higher order thinking
skill and it has properties such as analysing, evaluating, being reasonable and thinking
deeply, which all enable the individual to make judgements about the world (Jeevanantham, 2005).
A more comprehensive view of critical thinking refers to as a disposition, to
describe an individual’s inclination to use critical thinking when faced with problems
to solve, ideas to evaluate, or decisions to make (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001). Dispositions identified in the critical thinking literature include “tolerating ambiguity, willing
to suspend judgment, being open-minded, inquisitive, and sensitive to other ideas; in
short, a willingness to engage in sustained critical thinking” (McBride, Xiang &
Wittenburg, 2002:30). The disposition toward critical thinking refers to “the likelihood
that one will approach problem framing or problem solving by using reasoning”
(Giancarlo & Facione, 2001:3). A disposition toward critical thinking is a necessary
pre-condition for critical thinking and an integral part of the critical thinking capability

(Zoller, Ben-Chaim, Ron, Pentimalli, Scolastica, Chiara & Borsese, 2000:572). According to Underbakke, Borg and Peterson (1993), developing teaching for critical
thinking might first begin with an examination of one’s dispositions. The California
Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) is one of the first valid and reliable
measures of an individual’s critical thinking disposition (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001:
4). For this aim, Giancarlo and Facione (2001), Nelson Laird (2005) and McBride et
al. (2002) used CCTDI in their study.
Critical thinking is thinking which helps in solving problems and making judgements (Halpern, 2003); thus, an important dimension of critical thinking is problemsolving (Tapper, 2004). In his study, Faux (1992) examined the relationship between
creative thinking, critical thinking, intelligence and problem-solving skills and found
a positive and strong relationship between critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Problem-solving is the process by which an individual overcomes the hurdles
encountered in attaining the target (Temel & Morgil, 2012:59). According to Wheatley
(1984:1), “something is a problem when one doesn’t initially know how to do it, and
problem-solving is what you do when you don’t know what to do”. Problem-solving
skills, however, are shaped in accordance with the beliefs and expectations about one’s
problem-solving skills (Heppner, Witty & Dixon, 2004) because coping with environment and problems occur through one’s problem-solving capacity. The individual’s
self-evaluation of the ability to cope with problems effectively is extremely important
in this respect. Thus, individuals with positive perceptions of their problem-solving
ability might also be much better at problem-solving than those with negative perceptions of their problem solving ability (Güçlü, 2003). Heppner and Krauskopf (1987)
identified that perception of problem-solving ability plays a central role in the way an

South African Journal of Education; 2014; 34(1)

3

individual perceives and experiences different aspects of dealing with problem. Heppner and Petersen (1982) developed the Problem Solving Inventory (PSI) to assess
perceptions of one’s problem solving ability. The PSI has been used in several studies
(Good, Heppner, DeBord & Fisher, 2004; MacNair & Elliot, 1992) to measure individuals’ perceptions of their problem-solving ability.
Individuals capable of thinking critically try to understand the cause of every
situation or occurrence that they face, they question the underlying truths, they are
informed concerning the truth of what they read and hear, and make efforts to generate
solutions to handle the problems they encounter (Özdemir, 2005). They can also solve
their problems effectively (Snyder & Snyder, 2008). On the contrary, individuals lacking the ability to think critically may not succeed to think scientifically, analytically
and in a questioning manner, nor do they behave critically in situations that they face
or in the research process. In addition, the latter hardly ever use problem-solving
methods, – which represent one of the most important components of the research
process (Özdemir, 2005).
Gagne (1980) suggested that the main objective of education is to teach individuals how to think and how to be good problem-solvers because in real life individuals who are able to think, question, research and produce solutions to the problems
they meet may (are likely to) be successful (Aydoðdu, 2012). A great majority of the
criticisms concerning Turkish Education System relates to the fact that students who
are raised as the passive recipients of knowledge may have difficulties in making

critical choices, solving the complex problems they will face, and achieving in their
academic studies in the face of today’s information explosion (ªahinel, 2007), and thus
it is suggested that the new implications in the Turkish Education System should
concentrate on students’ intellectual development. The content and methods should be
re-arranged in a way so as to instil in them such skills as critical thinking, creative
thinking, relational thinking, and reasoning (Özden, 2011). For this aim, studentcentred learning may be a new implication. Student-centred learning is a broad approach that “includes such techniques as substituting active learning experiences for
lectures, holding students responsible for material that has not been explicitly discussed in class, assigning open-ended problems and problems requiring critical or
creative thinking that cannot be solved by following text examples, involving students
in simulations and role-plays, assigning a variety of unconventional writing exercises,
and using self-paced and/or cooperative (team-based) learning” (Felder & Brent, 1996:
43). Accordingly, problem-based learning (PBL) may be implemented as one of the
student-centred learning approaches.
As an instructional approach, PBL was first applied in the Medical School of Case
Western University, United States of America (USA), in the 1950s. It entered into the
literature in the late 1960s following a research study undertaken at McMaster University in Canada (Rhem, 1998). “PBL is a student-centred learning approach that empowers students to conduct a research, integrate theory and practice, and apply know-

4

Temel

ledge and skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem” (Savery, 2006:12).
PBL is consistent with the constructivist theory by challenging the student to take a
responsibility for learning (Coombs & Elden, 2004). Since, in the process of PBL,
individuals try to make sense of newly encountered situations based upon their prior
knowledge, this approach is based on the constructivist theory. As planning the learning activities necessitates students’ active participation in a specific problem state,
it is one of constructivist theory’s most important applications (Saban, 2010). Furthermore, it also draws from another aspect of constructivism, which is to do with learning
through social interaction, which recognises the impact of others’ ideas on the way
students make sense of things (Harlen, 2006 cited in Kelly & Finlayson, 2007). PBL
is an approach of learning in which the process of constructing knowledge activates
students’ prior knowledge, and problem-solving strategies of ill-structured problems
are developed and acquired through in-group discussions and through research (Koçakoðlu, 2010). The selection of ill-structured problems is critical to the success of the
PBL (Savery, 2006). Ill-structured problems are routinely encountered in everyday and
usually have divergent or alternative solutions (Shin, Jonassen & McGee, 2003).
Bringing students face-to-face with ill-structured problems which reflect real life and
making them take on active roles helps them to develop higher order thinking skills
(Yuzhi, 2003). “A critical skill developed through PBL is the ability to identify the
problem and set parameters on the development of a solution. When a problem is
well-structured students are less motivated and less invested in the development of the
solution” (Savery, 2006:13). The problems used in PBL should be designed in such a
manner as to improve students’ knowledge, personality, academic behaviour and attitudes (Barrett, 2012) and must allow for free inquiry (Savery, 2006). Problems should

be presented to students through scenarios (Neville & Britt, 2007). Problem scenarios
that are ill-structured may lead to critical and creative thinking, and thus PBL develops
higher order thinking skills (Yuzhi, 2003). Using problem scenarios in education differentiates PBL from other teaching approaches (Tan, 2010). Especially, PBL differs
from a problem-solving approach “in that in the PBL problems are encountered before
all the relevant knowledge has been acquired and, therefore, necessitates both the
acquisition of knowledge and the application of problem-solving skills. In some cases,
defining the problem itself forms part of the PBL. In a problem-solving approach, the
knowledge acquisition has usually already taken place and the problems serve as a
means to explore or enhance that knowledge” (Belt, Hywel Evans, McCreedy, Overton
& Summerfield, 2002:65). In contrast to the traditional approach in which knowledge
is transferred to students by the teacher, problem states are established by the teacher
to match the concepts in PBL, and the students are required to find solutions to those
problem states (Tan, 2010). Using complex and real-world problems to introduce a
concept and motivating learning in an active and cooperative learning environment,
PBL is a powerful alternative to the traditional teaching method in introductory
courses in biology, physics and chemistry (Allen, Duch & Groh, 1996). Also, in her

South African Journal of Education; 2014; 34(1)

5

study, Van Loggerenberg-Hattingh (2003) found that the use of PBL is more effective
in learning science than the traditional teaching method and that students taught
through PBL scored significantly higher than students taught traditional teaching
method on selected questions in the post-test that were classified on Bloom's taxonomy
as higher order questions.
Against this background, it may be said that it is becoming increasingly important
for individuals to possess higher order thinking skills in adjusting to today’s changing
circumstances and in coping with the problems they encounter. Critical thinking which
is one of the higher order thinking skills and problem-solving, a basic dimension of
critical thinking, are becoming obligatory for individuals in the 21st century. Thus, it
is necessary to examine these notions objectively and elaborate on the ways to equip
individuals with such skills (ªendað & Odabaºý, 2009). In this respect, implementing
PBL may serve as a way to develop these skills. Also, schools’ capacity to raise individuals who can think critically, gain and produce the knowledge they need, requires that
teachers are equipped with such skills (Korkmaz, 2009). Research suggests, however,
that while faculty support the development of critical thinking skills and acknowledge
their importance, they are infrequently taught how to define critical thinking or how
to facilitate development of critical thinking skills in the classroom (Bailin, Case,
Coombs & Daniels, 1999; Paul, Elder & Bartell, 1997). According to Lombard and
Grosser (2008), it is clear that critical thinking skills, as well as an understanding of

how to teach these skills, are lacking among pre-service and practising teachers. Furthermore, despite the fact that there is consensus that university education should
develop students’ critical thinking skills, the number of research studies confirming
these assumptions is very limited (Saçlý & Demirhan, 2008).
A review of the literature demonstrates that most research studies examined the
effects of PBL on student success and understanding in the teaching of various chemistry subjects (Aydoðdu, 2012; Bayrak, 2007; Bilgin, ªenocak & Sözbilir, 2009;
Kelly & Finlayson, 2007; Özeken & Yýldýrým, 2011; Ram, 1999; Van LoggerenbergHattingh, 2003; Wenzel, 1995; 1998; Yuzhi, 2003). Also, the results showing that PBL
has positive effects on critical thinking skills comes mainly from medical literature
(Birgegård & Lindquist, 1998; Tiwari, Lai, So & Yuen, 2006) makes this research
remarkable in education, especially in chemistry education. Hence, it is believed that
the research that is presented in this paper will contribute meaningfully to the existing
related literature.
Aim of the study

The aim of this study was two-fold. The first aim was to determine the levels of critical
thinking disposition and perception of problem-solving ability of pre-service teachers.
The second aim was to compare the effects of PBL and traditional teaching methods
on the critical thinking dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving ability of
pre-service teachers, when implemented in the teaching of the acid-base topic. The

6

Temel

present study focused on the following research questions:
• What are the levels of critical thinking disposition of pre-service teachers?
• What are the levels of perception of problem-solving ability of pre-service
teachers?
• Is there a significant difference between pre-service teachers’ critical thinking dispositions according to the different teaching methods implemented?
• Is there a significant difference between pre-service teachers’ perceptions of
problem-solving ability according to the different teaching methods implemented?
Method

The study used a pre-test–post-test control group design. It belongs to a true experimental design. The essential ingredient of the true experimental design is that subjects
are randomly assigned to treatment groups. Random assignment is a powerful technique for controlling the subject characteristics threat to internal validity, a major consideration in educational research (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).
The sample

The sample for the study consisted of 49 pre-service teachers from the Department of
Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey, who participated in the spring term of the 2011–2012 academic year. They were
first-year students at the Hacettepe University.
Instruments

California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI)

The CCTDI, which is used to measure respondent’s disposition toward critical thinking, was developed from the Delphi project organized by the American Philosophy
Association in 1990. The CCTDI is a 75-item Likert-type scale (Facione, Facione &
Giancarlo, 1998). Seven characteristics of the overall disposition toward critical
thinking emerged when statistical factor analytic techniques were applied in the initial
development of the CCTDI. These are: truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analyticity,
systematicity, critical thinking self-confidence, inquisitiveness and cognitive maturity
(Facione, Facione & Giancarlo, 2000). The total score indicates whether a respondent
is generally disposed to think critically — whether the respondent habitually exhibits
the characteristics of the ideal critical thinker (Facione et al., 1998).
The scale was adapted into Turkish from English by Kökdemir (2003), and the
necessary factor, validity and reliability analyses were also determined. Cronbach’s
alpha reliability coefficient for the scale was found to be 0.88. The CCTDI is a 6-point
Likert-type scale consisting of 51 items. The scale consists of 6 sub-scales that address
the following characteristics: open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, self- confidence, inquisitiveness and truth-seeking (Kökdemir, 2003). The open-mindedness
sub-scale addresses being tolerant of divergent views and sensitive to the possibility
of one’s bias. The analyticity sub-scale assesses prizing the application of reasoning

South African Journal of Education; 2014; 34(1)

7

and the use of evidence to resolve problems, anticipating potential conceptual or
practical difficulties, and consistently being alert to the need to intervene. The systematicity sub-scale measures being organized, orderly, focused, and diligent in inquiry.
The self-confidence sub-scale measures the trust one places in one’s own reasoning
processes. The inquisitiveness sub-scale measures of one’s intellectual curiosity and
desire for learning even when the application of the knowledge is not readily apparent.
The truth-seeking sub-scale targets the disposition of being eager to seek the best
knowledge in a given context, courageous about asking questions, and honest and
objective about pursuing inquiry even if the findings do not support one’s self-interests
or one’s preconceived opinions (Facione, Giancarlo & Facione, 1993:6-7). An overall
CCTDI score of less than 240 shows serious overall deficiency in critical thinking
dispositions, whereas an overall score of greater than 300 shows strength in overall
critical thinking disposition. The maximum score for CCTDI is 360 (Kökdemir, 2003).
Sample items on the CCTDI are:
‘‘I’m proud that I can think with great precision’’ (self-confidence sub-scale)
‘‘It’s important to me to understand what other people think about things’’ (openmindedness sub-scale) (Facione et al., 1998).
Problem-solving inventory (PSI)

The PSI, which is used to assess perceptions of one’s problem-solving ability, was
developed by Heppner and Petersen (1982). The inventory does not assess actual problem-solving skills but rather one’s perception of one’s problem-solving beliefs and
style (Heppner et al., 2004). The scale was adapted into Turkish from English by
Savaºýr and ªahin (1997). It consists of 35 items and employs a 6-point Likert-type
scale. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the overall inventory was found
to be 0.90 by Savaºýr and ªahin (1997). The range of scores attainable on the inventory
is between 32 and 192. According to Taylan (1990:41), high scores show that the respondent perceives oneself as insufficient in terms of problem-solving skills, while low
scores show the respondents’ problem-solving skills as being at a satisfactory level.
The inventory has 3 sub-scales: problem-solving confidence “... self-assurance while
engaging in problem-solving activities”; approach–avoidance style “... a general
tendency of respondents to approach or avoid problem-solving activities”; and
personal control “... the extent to which respondents believe that they are in control of
their emotions and behaviour while solving problems”. Sample items on the PSI are:
“I am usually able to think up creative and effective alternatives to solve a problem”
(problem-solving confidence sub-scale)
“Sometimes I get so charged up emotionally that I am unable to consider many ways
of dealing with my problem” (personal control sub-scale) (Heppner, 1988).
Procedure

In this study, the acid-base topic, which is related to daily life, was chosen. Acids and
bases play an important role in our bodies, in medicine, in our homes, and in industry,

8

Temel

they are useful products in many ways, as industrial by-products, they can damage the
environment. Their use requires caution, and their misuse can be dangerous to human
health. For example: Acid rain is an important environmental problem that involves
both air pollution and water pollution (Acids and Bases n.d.).
Initially, the researcher informed the pre-service teachers of the importance and
justification for the study. The aim of the research was explained to the pre-service
teachers. Then, the pre-service teachers were randomly assigned to an experimental
group (n = 22) and a control group (n = 27) according to their semester scores in
General Chemistry I and Basic Chemistry I during the autumn semester in the 2011–
2012 academic year. The CCTDI and PSI were administered as pre-test treatments to
determine whether or not both the experimental group and control group were equivalent in respect of their critical thinking dispositions and their perceptions of problemsolving ability.
Secondly, the pre-service teachers in the experimental group were informed of
principles of and application stages of PBL and pre-service teachers in the control
group were informed of traditional teaching method. Then the pre-service teachers in
the experimental group were randomly assigned to five groups (two groups of five
pre-service teachers and three groups of four pre-service teachers) because PBL
activities are presented through group learning. According to Wood (2003:328),
“group learning facilitates not only the acquisition of knowledge but also several other
desirable attributes, such as communication skills, teamwork, problem-solving, independent responsibility for learning, sharing information, and respect for others. PBL
can therefore be thought of as a small group learning approach that combines the
acquisition of knowledge with the development of generic skills and attitudes”.
The teaching of the acid-base topic was presented in five sessions through the
PBL in the experimental group. In the first session, each of the five groups was given
a problem scenario by the researcher. A sample of the problem scenarios is given in
Figure 1 ('Benim çocuðum içmez' demeyin!, 2011). The problem scenarios were formed in accordance with the properties that a problem of PBL should possess, as
determined by Groh (2001). The groups analysed the problem scenarios given and
tried to determine the issues given to them in the problem scenarios. The groups began
to ask that what they know, what they do not know and what they need to know related
to the issues. Then the groups listed the key issues to be learned. Related to the sample
problem scenario, some of the key issues listed were: Corrosive substances, acid,
base, pH, corrosive properties of acid-bases. The groups also tried to define a problem
state in the problem scenario. At this point, the researcher acted as a facilitator to guide
groups’ analysis process of the problem scenarios. When the first stage was concluded,
five groups prepared a work plan and decided on the distribution of tasks to gather data
related to their key issues. In the second session, the groups presented the knowledge
gathered to each other. Through group discussions, the groups determined the problem
state. Related to the sample problem scenario, the problem state was: If a child drinks
a corrosive substance by mistake, what should be done? Then the groups determined

South African Journal of Education; 2014; 34(1)

9

sub-problems of their problem scenarios. Related to the sample problem scenario, one
of the sub-problems was: What damages can be occurred, when corrosive substances
are swallowed by a child? Meanwhile, the researcher tried to make observation of
groups’ discussion and to ask questions in order to lead groups to thinking during
determination of sub-problems. Afterwards, the groups formed hypotheses about their
sub-problems. Related to the sample problem scenario, one of the hypotheses about
the sub-problems was: If a child swallows corrosive substances, this can lead to
serious damage. At the end of the session, the groups determined areas of deficiency
in their knowledge and strategies to address these, and prepared a new distribution of
tasks accordingly. In the third session, all five groups made brief summaries of the
previous session. Then the groups revised their hypotheses based on the knowledge
obtained, and made corrections. Subsequently, the groups tried to determine the solutions to the sub-problems. In the fourth session, having made a summary of the previous sessions, they prepared a list of what had been done. The groups examined the
solutions offered and decided on the best solution. The best solution for the sample
problem scenario was: Making individuals conscious of the properties and damages
of corrosive substances. The groups also determined what the final product would be.
In the fifth session, the groups considered the problem states, the sub-problems and the
hypotheses and the solution that they had constructed. The groups prepared a report
for presentation to the classroom. Then the groups presented what they learned about
their problem scenario. During all PBL processes, the researcher tried to make observations and provide each pre-service teacher in the different groups an opportunity to
participate in the process. When groups had a problem during the PBL process, the
researcher guided them with questions without giving any information. The researcher
helped pre-service teachers collaborate well and encouraged them to justify their
thinking.
In the control group the teaching of the acid-base topic followed the traditional
teaching method. The teaching was conducted in such a way that the researcher was
active and the students were passive listeners, the latter asking for explanations of the
parts that they did not understand. In particular, the traditional teaching method
consisted of a subject-based approach. The researcher employed such techniques as
direct explanations and question-and-answer in the presentation of the topic.
In the final stage of the study, the CCTDI and PSI were administered as the posttest treatments to both the experimental group and control group for obtaining post-test
measures after the implementation of the different teaching methods.
Data analysis

Descriptive statistics, independent t tests and a two-way ANOVA for mixed measures
were employed in the data analysis.
Results

Independent t tests were used to analyse the data obtained from pre-test treatments.
The results are given in Table 1 and Table 2.

10

Temel
Do not say “my child never drinks milk”

Detergents in our homes rank the first in child poisoning. They are followed by
medicines... For instance, 793 children drinking the chemicals in the house were
poisoned in 2010 in Samsun.
SAMSUN- Assoc. Prof. Dr Ilknur Avcý from the College of Medical Sciences, Ondokuz Mayýs
University, pointed out that children’s curiosity forced them to drink the chemicals.
Avcý saying “the chemicals at homes stand as serious hazards for children under the age of 6,
when especially the feeling of curiosity is intensely experienced” stated:
“The chemicals, especially those used for cleaning purposes in our homes, are increasing day by
day. The substances known as corrosive substances in medical jargon are of strong acidicalkaline characteristic powder or liquid caustics such as nitric acid, detergents for washing
machines and dishwashers, drain cleaners, and oil-solvents which are used for cleaning purposes
in homes. Those substances have increased both in kind and in number recently, and are likely
to be drunk by children mistaking them for water.”

What might happen if your child drank it?

Figure 1 A sample of the problem scenarios
Table 1 The CCTDI pre-test scores of pre-service teachers in both groups
Groups
Experimental
Control

N

0

SD

df

t

p

22
27

212.000
199.518

18.178
27.842

47

1.887

0.066

When Table 1 is examined, it can be observed that there is no significant difference between the critical thinking disposition scores of pre-service teachers in both
the experimental group and control group (t = 1.887, p = 0.066).
Table 2 The PSI pre-test scores of pre-service teachers in both groups
Groups
Experimental
Control

N

0

SD

df

t

p

22
27

94.318
93.185

13.537
18.106

47

0.243

0.809

11

South African Journal of Education; 2014; 34(1)

When Table 2 is examined, it can be seen that there is no significant difference between the perception of problem-solving ability scores of pre-service teachers in both
the experimental group and control group (t = 0.243, p = 0.809).
According to the scores in Table 1 and Table 2, it was observed that the experimental group and control group are equivalent in respect of their critical thinking
dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving ability at the beginning of the study.
In relation to the first research question, the levels of critical thinking disposition
of pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and control group were determined. The percentages of pre-service teachers for the CCTDI scores of each group
are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Percentages for the pre-service teachers’ CCTDI pre-test–post-test scores
Levels of critical thinking disposition
Groups
Experimental
Control

Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test

low-scoring
group (%)

middle-scoring
group (%)

high-scoring
group (%)

90.90
86.36
92.59
88.88

9.10
13.64
7.41
11.12

0
0
0
0

As can be seen from Table 3, the pre-service teachers were divided into two
groups according to their CCTDI pre-test and post-test scores. When the CCTDI
pre-test and post-test scores of pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and
control group were examined, it was determined that the majority scored lowly and
none of them scored highly. When the CCTDI post-test scores of pre-service teachers
in both the experimental group and control group were examined, it was seen that there
is an increase in the scores of pre-service teachers in the middle-scoring group.
However, the increase is low. According to these scores, it can be said that the levels
of critical thinking disposition of pre-service teachers in both the experimental group
and control group are generally low.
In relation to the second research question, the levels of perception of problemsolving ability of pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and control
group were determined. The mean scores of pre-service teachers for the PSI of each
group are shown in Table 4.
As can be seen from Table 4, from the mean scores for the PSI pre-test–post-test
results, it was determined that the mean scores are higher than the middle value (0 =
80) of the PSI. According to these results, it can be said that the levels of perception
of problem-solving ability of pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and
control group are generally middling.

12

Temel

Table 4 The mean scores for the PSI pre-test–post-test results
Groups
Experimental
Control

Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test

0

SD

94.318
84.045
93.185
95.185

13.537
14.977
18.106
17.890

Related to the third research question, the values of the CCTDI pre-test–post-test
mean scores and standard deviations for the pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and control group were calculated. The scores are given in Table 5.
Table 5 Values of mean scores and standard deviations for the CCTDI
Pre-test
Groups
Experimental
Control

Post-test

N
22
27

0

SD

0

SD

212.000
199.518

18.179
27.842

220.500
204.666

20.075
28.085

According to the scores in Table 5, it can be said that there is an increase in the
scores for the critical thinking dispositions of pre-service teachers in both the experimental and control groups.
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results relating to the statistical
significance of the increase between the CCTDI pre-test–post-test scores are given in
Table 6.
Table 6 The ANOVA results for the pre-test–post-test scores on the CCTDI
Source
Between groups
Group (D/K)
Error
Within groups
Measure (pre-test-post-test)
Group *Measure
Error
Sum

Sum of squares
44226.245
4859.458
39366.787
17896.587
1129.036
68.097
16699.454
62122.832

df
48
1
47
49
1
1
47
97

Mean square

F

p

4859.458
837.591

5.802

0.020

1129.036
68.097
355.308

3.178
0.192

0.081
0.664

When Table 6 is examined, no statistical difference was found between the
CCTDI pre-test–post-test scores of the pre-service teachers, in both the experimental
group and control group, according to the different teaching methods implemented

13

South African Journal of Education; 2014; 34(1)

(F1,47 = 0.192, p = 0.664). This result can be interpreted as implying that PBL and traditional teaching methods do not have different effects on the critical thinking dispositions of pre-service teachers.
Related to the fourth research question, the values of the PSI pre-test–post-test
mean scores and standard deviations for the pre-service teachers in both groups were
calculated. The results are given in Table 7.
Table 7 Values of mean scores and standard deviations for the PSI
Pre-test
Groups
Experimental
Control

Post-test

N
22
27

0

SD

0

SD

94.318
93.185

13.537
18.106

84.045
92.814

14.977
18.708

The results in Table 7 illustrate that there is a decrease in the scores of perceptions
of problem-solving ability of pre-service teachers. Accordingly, it can be said that
there is an improvement in the perceptions of problem-solving ability of pre-service
teachers in both the experimental group and control group.
A two-way ANOVA results relating to whether or not the decrease in the PSI
pre-test–post-test scores is statistically significant are given in Table 8.
Table 8 The ANOVA results for pre-test–post-test scores on the PSI
Source
Between groups
Group (D/K)
Error
Within groups
Measure (pre-test-post-test)
Group *Measure
Error
Sum

Sum of squares
19668
353.455
19314.545
8150.262
686.588
594.344
6869.330
27818.262

df
48
1
47
49
1
1
47
97

Mean square

F

p

353.455
410.948

0.860

0.358

686.588
594.344
146.156

4.698
4.067

0.0035
0.049

When Table 8 is examined, a statistical difference can be observed between the
PSI pre-test–post-test scores of the pre-service teachers in both the experimental group
and control group according to different teaching methods implemented (F 1,47 = 4.067,
p = 0.049). This result can be interpreted as implying that PBL and the traditional
teaching method have different effects on the perceptions of problem-solving ability
of pre-service teachers.

14

Temel

Conclusion and discussion

In relation to the first research question, the pre-service teachers were divided into two
groups according to their CCTDI pre-test and post-test scores. An examination of the
percentages concerning the pre-service teachers in the two groups showed that the
percentages of the pre-service teachers in the low-scoring group according to the
post-test results in both the experimental group and control group decreased whereas
the percentage of those in the middle-scoring group increased. Nevertheless, it was
found that the percentages of those in the low-scoring group were quite high in both
the experimental group and control group in the pre-test and the post-test. According
to the results, it can be said that the levels of critical thinking disposition of the preservice teachers in both the experimental group and control group were generally low.
The results of this study are not unique. A review of the literature also suggests that
pre-service teachers’ levels of critical thinking disposition are usually low or middling.
Channel (2000) and Güven and Kürüm (2007) found that students’ levels of critical
thinking tendencies in education faculties were generally low, whereas Korkmaz
(2009) and Özdemir (2005) found them to be intermediate. However, McBride et al.
(2002) provided evidence of a positive inclination toward critical thinking of preservice physical education students on the total score of the CCTDI. Zoller et al.
(2000) determined positive overall disposition toward critical thinking of Israeli and
Italian university science students on the total scores of the CCTDI.
In relation to the second research question, the PSI pre-test and post-test mean
scores were calculated. Although a decrease was observed in the post-test mean scores
for both the experimental group and control group, their mean scores of perceptions
of problem-solving ability in the pre-test and the post-test were close to the mean value
of the PSI. According to the results, it can be said that the pre-service teachers’ perceptions of problem-solving ability in both the experimental group and control group
were generally at the middle level. Similarly, in the literature, research conducted by
Saracaloðlu, Yenice and Karasakaloðlu (2000) with pre-service elementary school teachers and that of Temel (2009) with pre-service chemistry teachers showed that preservice teachers were at a satisfactory level in terms of perceptions of problem-solving
ability.
In terms of the third research question, the values of the CCTDI pre-test–post-test
mean scores and standard deviations for the pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and control group were calculated. A close examination of the results
showed that there is an increase in the critical thinking disposition scores of the
pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and control group. According to
a two-way ANOVA analysis, no significant difference was found between the pre-test
and post-test CCTDI scores according to the different teaching methods implemented
(F1,47 = 0.192, p = 0.664). According to the result, it may be said that PBL and the traditional teaching method do not differ significantly in terms of increasing pre-service
teachers’ critical thinking dispositions.
Concerning the fourth research question, the values of the PSI pre-test–post-test

South African Journal of Education; 2014; 34(1)

15

mean score and standard deviations of the pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and control group were calculated. The results showed that there is a
decrease in the perceptions of problem-solving ability scores of the pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and control group. In order to determine whether
or not the decrease was statistically significant, a two-factor ANOVA analysis was
conducted. A significant difference was found between the PSI pre-test and post-test
scores of the pre-service teachers in both the experimental group and control group
according to the different teaching methods implemented (F 1,47 = 4.067, p = 0.049).
Accordingly, the result may be interpreted as PBL and the traditional teaching method
having different effects on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of problem-solving ability.
It is reasonable to argue that the difference observed in the pre-service teachers’
perceptions of problem-solving ability arises from the use of PBL approach. It was
also found that the PBL approach, in which a greater decrease was observed in the
scores of perceptions of problem-solving ability, was more influential than the traditional teaching method in raising pre-service teachers’ perceptions of problem-solving
ability.
Evaluating the results of this study, it was found that the critical thinking dispositions of pre-service teachers in the experimental group were at a higher level than
those in the control group following the implementation. However, the superiority of
PBL over the traditional teaching method in the development of students’ critical
thinking dispositions was not found to be statistically significant. The literature review
showed the existence of research studies with findings inconsistent with those obtained
in the present study (Gürses, Açýkyýldýz, Doðar & Sözbilir, 2007; ªendað & Odabaºý,
2009; Sulaiman, 2013; ªenocak, Taºkesenligil & Sözbilir, 2007). Moreover, it was
also found in this study that PBL and the traditional teaching method have different
effects on the perceptions of problem-solving ability of pre-service teachers. The study
showed that PBL was more influential in increasing the perceptions of problemsolving abilities of the pre-service teachers than the traditional teaching method.
Studies consistent with this finding can also be found in the literature (for examples,
see, Gürlen, 2011; Yaman, 2003; Yaman & Yalçýn, 2005).
To sum up, the fact that critical thinking is a more detailed thinking skill than
problem-solving, and that it requires more time to develop than its counterpart, may
be considered the first reason for the influence of PBL in increasing perceptions of
problem-solving ability and its relative lack of effectiveness in increasing critical
thinking dispositions of the pre-service teachers. The possibility that the pre-service
teachers were not objective concerning their own problem-solving skills might be
considered to be another reason. It was also notable in this study that the levels of
critical thinking disposition and perception of problem-solving ability of the preservice teachers in both the experimental group and control group were inadequate.
This may be attributed to the fact that the students included in the study were first year
students. In a study, Tümkaya, Aybek and Aldað (2009) found a difference between
pre-service science and social science teachers in terms of critical thinking dispositions

16

Temel

and perception of problem-solving ability according to grade levels favoured those in
final year. This result can be interpreted as the positive influence of four years of university education on their critical thinking disposition and perception of problemsolving ability. Furthermore, the fact that the pre-service teachers in this study were
newly acquainted with a learning approach, which was different from the traditional
teaching method, that is, they were involved in a learning environment to which they
were unfamiliar, may be regarded as the reason for the insufficient level of their
thinking skills acquisition.
Therefore, in order to ensure that pre-service teachers’ critical thinking dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving ability improve, the levels at which preservice teachers possess those skills should be described, hence the significance of
specifying the level of study for the pre-service teachers. Then, situations likely to
hinder the development of those skills should be determined. For example, “some
beliefs can hinder critical thinking. If you believe you will fail at trying to solve a
problem, you probably won’t try. If you don’t try, you won’t avail yourself of the
opportunity to learn and develop your talents, including your critical thinking talents”
(Carroll, 2004:13). In this process, a model should be provided to the pre-service teachers and opportunities should be given in order for them to develop critical thinking
dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving ability. In particular, student- centred
learning approaches should be employed in classes to enable them to develop skills
such as critical thinking dispositions and perceptions of problem-solving ability. Finally, research studies should be undertaken to analyse pre-service teachers’ views of
approaches such as PBL, which might give teachers views and the success of new instructional approaches, and to take necessary precautions to mitigate negative effects,
if any.
References
Acids and Bases n.d. Available at http://www.pearsonhighered.com/hillkolb13einfo/
assets/pdf/hill-kolb-ch07.pdf. Accessed 2 January 2011.
Allen DE, Duch BJ & Groh SE 1996. The Power of Problem-Based Learning in Teaching
Introductory Science Courses. In L Wilkerson & WH Gijselaers (eds). Bringing
Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education: Theory and Practice. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bailin S, Case R, Coombs JR & Daniels LB 1999. Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 31(3):284-302. Available at http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/ctl/__
shared/assets/ct-conceptualize597.pdf. Accessed 12 December 2013.
Barrett T 2012. Learning about the problem in problem-based learning (PBL) by listening to
students’ talk in tutorials: a critical discourse analysis study. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 37(4):519-535. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2011.645464
Belt ST, Hywel EE, McCreedy T, Overton TL & Summerfield S 2002. A problem-based
learning approach to analytical and applied chemistry. University Chemistry Education,
6:65-72. Available at http://www.rsc.org/pdf/uchemed/papers/2002/p10_overton.pdf.
Accessed 12 December 2013.

South African Journal of Education; 2014; 34(1)

17

Bilgin Ý, ªenocak E & Sözbilir M 2009. The effects of problem-based learning instruction
on university students’ performance of conceptual and quantitative problems in gas
concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,
5(2):153-164.
Birgegård G & Lindquist U 1998. Change in student attitudes to medical school after the
introduction of problem-based learning in spite of low ratings. Medical Education,
32(1):46-49. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00157.x
Carroll RT 2004. Becoming a Critical Thinker: A Guide for the New Millennium. California:
Pearson Learning Solutions.
Channel WS 2000. Think different: A comparison of the critical thinking abilities of
education majors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Las Vegas: University of Nevada.
Cole M & Scribner S 1974. Culture and thought: A psychological introduction. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Coombs G & Elden M 2004. Introduction to the special issue: Problem-Based Learning as
social inquiry—PBL and management education. Journal of Management Education,
28(5):523-535. doi: 10.1177/1052562904267540
Dewey J 1933. How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.
Facione PA, Facione NC & Giancarlo CA 2000. The disposition toward critical thinking: Its
character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1):6184. Available at http://www.insightassessment.com/CT-Resources/Independent-Critical
-Thinking-Research/pdf-file/The-Disposition-Toward-Critical-Thinking-Its-CharacterMeasurement-and-Relationship-to-Critical-Thinking-Skill-PDF. Accessed 17
December 2013.
Facione PA, Facione NC & Giancarlo CAF 1998. The California critical thinking
disposition inventory. California: Academic Press.
Facione PA, Giancarlo CA & Facione NC 1993. Are college students disposed to think?
Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
Faux BJ 1992. An analysis of the interaction on critical thinking, creative thinking.
Unpublished doctoral thesis. Pennsylvania, USA: Temple University.
Felder RM & Brent R 1996. Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction.
College Teaching, 44(2):43-47. doi: 10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425
Fraenkel JR & Wallen NE 2006. How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gagne RM 1980. Is educational technology in phase? Educational Technology, 20:7-14.
Giancarlo CA & Facione PA 2001. A look across four years at the disposition toward
critical thinking among undergraduate students. The Journal of General Education,
50(1):29-55. Available at
http://www.insi